Tim Peterson, Associate Editor
Ideology: Left-Independent | Writing from: New York
I’m torn on CA Prop. 14—the measure that, having been passed with an overwhelming majority, will institute open primaries in the Golden State with the top two vote-getters, regardless of party, advancing to the general election.
On the one hand, the Darwinian in me likes the idea of flattening the field into more of a meritocracy. On the other, the native Californian in me—who, disenfranchised by age, witnessed the election of Arnold Schwarzenegger and the state’s consequential collapse—fears the negative possibilities of kingmaker power being handed to an electorate of such miscellaneous political engagement (also doesn’t help that the Governator is an outspoken supporter of Prop. 14). And the amateur political scientist in me is kicking himself with curiosity.
California would not be the first state with an open primary system—Louisiana employed it for three decades until closing Senate and House primaries in 2007, although the state is on the verge of reversing itself once again—but its diverse electorate and the high stakes involved would prove perhaps the most compelling electoral experiment in some time.
With that in mind, I was hoping to hypothesize its effects on this year’s CA gubernatorial election. No dice.
First, one would have to imagine that the increased significance would result in a higher Democratic turnout. This year’s primary was of more consequence for California Republicans than Democrats, leading to an unbalanced turnout. Second, to play devil’s advocate, by removing party puppetmasters, it’s feasible that more California elections will resemble the 2003 recall election, which led to Schwarzenegger’s governorship and included Larry Flynt the late Gary Coleman and a porn star as candidates. That is, there are possibilities for the type of electoral manipulation normally reserved for a Chris Rock comedy. Conversely, pitting 2003’s top two vote-getters—Schwarzenegger and Lieutenant Governor Cruz Bustamante—against each other in a run-off may have resulted differently.
It’s a fool’s errand to conjecture Prop. 14’s impact. It’s a test of a Jeffersonian democracy versus a Hamiltonian one: To what extent can the general public be trusted? But it is my hope that the outcome favors neither Jefferson nor Hamilton but Madison, the author of the Virginia Plan who, writes Gordon Wood in Revolutionary Characters, “expected that the clashing interests and passions in the enlarges national Republic would neutralize themselves in the society and allow liberally educated, rational men—men, he said, ‘whose enlightened view and virtuous sentiments render them superior to local prejudices, and to schemes of injustice’—to decide questions of the public good in a disinterested adjudicatory manner.”
Which is all to say, I’m cautiously optimistic.
I think prop 14 is awesome, but more often than not one side will still be smart enough to rally around a single candidate to get them to the top. I’d bet the first few years with this new law are going to be crazy (like the recall) until people get a hang of the system, and it will turn right back into “most left” vs. “most right”
Agree that it could return to some semblance of a two-party system, but not so sure that it’ll be two extremes. The open primaries would best serve to revise the state’s politics. Although the extremes of both parties make the most noise (and get the most voter initiatives on the ballot), many Californians are actually moderates who are predominantly interested in local issues but grow discouraged by the more “national” tone of the primaries. With this in mind, I hope that voters will be able to coerce future candidates to follow suit and campaign on California (taxes, immigration, water supply).
Frankly, I fear that it empowers the party leadership to back a specific candidate who they like and influence people in that party to support that candidate. You’re still going to wind up with a Democrat and a Republican, they’re just going to be a more party-line candidate, forcing voters in November to vote for the Democratic puppet or the Republican puppet.
With so many propositions on the ballot in an election, it is extremely unlikely that the average voter can do the level of research necessary to make a decision in which they substitute themselves for the legislature. Voters in the same electoral district as I am voted for nine state constitutional officers, a Congressperson and Senator, an Assemblyperson, seven members of the Party Central Committee, six judges, a county assessor, county sheriff, and county supervisor, two constitutional amendments, three initiatives, and a school bond measure for a total of 34 separate votes cast on a single ballot.
Back on the subject of the referendum itself, the system does not make sense in a diverse political climate like the State of California. In Los Angeles, we have a similar system, but our electorate is overwhelmingly Democratic. I don’t mean 60/40. I mean 80/20. In that situation, it is quite possible that two Democrats will be in the general election, like what has happened in both 2005 and 2009. But California is more even, with Democrats comprising maybe 55-60 percent of the affiliated voters, meaning the Republicans with 35-40 percent can always overcome the Democrats’ second choice, still pitting a Democrat and Republican against one another.
This measure is as flawed as the electoral process it went through and has succeeded in further empowering parties under the guise of empowering voters.
“I fear that it empowers the party leadership to back a specific candidate who they like and influence people in that party to support that candidate”
But how does that differ from the current system?
How I see it, it’s less what parties will participate in the runoff than what candidates. Currently candidates appeal to their base in the primaries and then independents in the general. This creates a system in which the primaries nominate politicians based on their likelihood to win the general election rather than their merits. Ideally an open primary would reverse that criteria. Of course, this is all conjecture, but I once again turn to Madison:
“as each representative will be chosen by a greater number of citizens in the large than in the small republic, it will be more difficult for unworthy candidates to practice with success the vicious arts by which elections are too often carried; and the suffrages of the people being more free, will be more likely to centre in men who possess the most attractive merit and the most diffusive and established characters… The smaller the society, the fewer probably will be the distinct parties and interests composing it; the fewer the distinct parties and interests, the more frequently will a majority be found of the same party; and the smaller the number of individuals composing a majority, and the smaller the compass within which they are placed, the more easily will they concert and execute their plans of oppression. Extend the sphere, and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens; or if such a common motive exists, it will be more difficult for all who feel it to discover their own strength, and to act in unison with each other.”
Living as a minority in New York I can’t see how open primaries is bad. With maybe one out of ten voters being registered Republicans and very few going to the ballot box to vote in primaries, our primary elections are decided by maybe 500-1000 people, most of them active party members. Hence we many times end up with a socially conservative strict Republican that has no chance in the general election. A fiscal conservative and social liberal on the Republican ticket can attract many voters from both parties but will not make it past the primaries, leaving us with a hard-left progressive to take the general election